In a broader sense, having your family profit from those works after your death may stimulate one to focus on creating creative works rather than a different source of income where assets accrued can benefit them. In particular in cases where your spouse and children are dependant on your income. That it should be restricted by a lot is obvious by now of course.

Also: not having copyright expire upon your death prevents making your (untimely and assisted) death less attractive to anyone who would greatly benefit from those rights to disappear, although I do hope that is a hypothetical edge case.

> , having your family profit from those works after your death may stimulate one to focus on creating creative works

I'd argue the exact opposite, that reduce the incentive to produce new work, why creating new work when you can profit from old ones you haven't put any effort into it?

> Also: not having copyright expire upon your death prevents making your (untimely and assisted) death less attractive to anyone who would greatly benefit from those rights to disappear, although I do hope that is a hypothetical edge case.

That could be a good argument for it yes, I haven't thought about the external pressure.

The vast majority of artists struggle to make even a living wage. Many successful artists only become financially so late in life, if ever, and were often in extreme poverty until that happened. Cormac McCarthy is a good example. Is it really fair to their estate to cease all protection of their works just because they died?

Is Apple going to relinquish control over patents and the products they protect when their inventors die?

Most people care about leaving something of value for their descendants. This includes both financial resources and a proud legacy. Indeed, especially late in life, this might be more of a motivator than the limited personal benefit they might derive.